G.R. No. 224469 - Sama y Hinupas vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224469)

Petitioner
Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda, members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous cultural community in Barangay Baras, Baco, Oriental Mindoro

Respondent
The People of the Philippines

Key Dates
• March 15, 2005 – Apprehension of petitioners cutting a dita tree
• May 27, 2005 – Filing of Information for violation of Section 77, PD 705
• August 24, 2010 – Trial court decision convicting petitioners
• May 29, 2015 – Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction
• January 5, 2021 – En Banc resolution of the Supreme Court

Applicable Law
• Section 77, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by E.O. 277 (1987 Constitution)
• Republic Act No. 8371 (1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act)
• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code (qualified theft penalties)
• Rule 133, Sec. 2, Rules of Court (proof beyond reasonable doubt)
• 1987 Constitution, Article II, Sec. 22; Article XII, Sec. 2 & Sec. 5

Facts
• A DENR–police team patrolling for illegal loggers in Sitio Matahimik, Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, saw petitioners cutting a dita tree with an unregistered chainsaw.
• Petitioners admitted no DENR permit but asserted Iraya-Mangyan communal ownership of the site, planted in ancestral lands, and said the wood was needed for a communal toilet project.

Procedural History
• Trial Court (RTC Branch 39, Calapan City) convicted petitioners of unlicensed cutting under Section 77, PD 705, sentencing them to a term of imprisonment and costs.
• Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 33906) affirmed the RTC decision and denied reconsideration.
• Petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari, reiterating their IPRA‐based justification and challenging proof of conspiracy and identification.

Issue
Whether petitioners can be convicted under Section 77, PD 705, for cutting timber without authority, given their claim of communal Indigenous People’s rights over ancestral domain.

Court’s Analysis

Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
– Criminal guilt must be proven to moral certainty (Rule 133, Sec. 2). Doubt must be reasoned and connected to evidence.
Scope of Section 77, PD 705
– Section 77 penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber from (a) forest land, (b) alienable or disposable public land, or (c) private land, without authority.
– “Forest land,” “public land,” and “private land” are defined in PD 705 and pertain to the public domain or titled private land; ancestral domains, held by IPs since time immemorial, are sui generis and not expressly covered.
Indigenous Domains and State Regulation
– The 1987 Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 22; Art. XII, Sec. 5) and IPRA recognize and protect IPs’ rights to ancestral lands and resources for cultural integrity, subject to national unity and development.
– IPRA (1997) grants IPs “priority rights” to manage and conserve natural resources in ancestral domains (Sec. 57) and imposes duties to maintain ecological balance (Sec. 9).
– No IPRA provision expressly exempts ancestral‐domain tree‐cutting from the permit requirement of PD 705.
Authority to Cut—Evolution of PD 705
– PD 389 (1974) punished unlicensed cutting “without permit from the Director.”
– PD 705 (1975) referred to cutting “without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit.”
– E.O. 277 (1987) broadened the phrase to cutting “without any authority,” arguably to include lawful claims such as IP rights.
Reasonable Doubt as to “Authority”
– The change from a DENR‐specific permit to “any authority” creates ambiguity whether IPRA rights satisfy the requirement.
– Petitioners relied on IPRA‐recognized communal rights and on NGO and NCIP assurances that they could use ancestral‐domain wood for community projects.
– The prosecution failed to offer a DENR certification that no autho

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224469)

Facts of the Case

On March 15, 2005, police officers and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) representatives executed a surveillance operation in Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro to curb illegal logging.
The team heard a chainsaw operating 50 meters away and discovered petitioners—members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous community—cutting a dita tree.
Petitioners admitted they possessed no permit to cut the tree; they intended to use its wood to construct a communal toilet for their IP community, at the behest of their elders and with NGO support.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioners and a third co-accused were charged by Information (May 27, 2005) with violating Section 77 of the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. 705).
At arraignment, all pleaded not guilty and filed a Motion to Quash, alleging protection under R.A. 8371 (IPRA).
The Motion to Quash was denied as a “mere scrap of paper”; trial proceeded.
The prosecution offered the joint affidavit of apprehending officers, the apprehension receipt, and photos of the cut tree.
Petitioners presented only Barangay Captain Aceveda, who testified that the dita tree grew within their ancestral domain and was cut for the communal toilet project.

Trial Court Decision (August 24, 2010)

Judge Manuel Luna, Jr. convicted petitioners as principals of malum prohibitum violation of Section 77, P.D. 705, sentencing them to arresto mayor to prision correccional and costs.
The court classified a 500-board-feet dita tree as “timber” under Section 77 and held that cutting without a DENR permit is unlawful per se.
It rejected petitioners’ IPRA defense and faulted their lone witness for lack of first-hand knowledge.
Motion for reconsideration was denied (October 13, 2010).

Court of Appeals Proceedings & Ruling (May 29, 2015)

Petitioners renewed their IPRA-based defense—claiming communal dominion over their ancestral domain and cultural integrity rights.
The Office of the Solicitor General countered that IPRA does not excuse cutting timber sans DENR permit and that petitioners failed to prove IP entitlement or absence of conspiracy.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, stressing petitioners’ failure to produce any license, lease or permit, and insufficient proof of ancestral claim.
Mo